What John MacArthur Believes About Everything

Jerry: This post is not to clearly show (John MacArthur) teaches something heretical. Instead, this post is to present his beliefs and compare them with the Bible. The correct word I would use is aberrant concerning the doctrines he has that is based on strong Calvinism's TULIP.

We often hear the words “heresy” and “aberration” used in reference to unbiblical doctrines. But what exactly is the difference between a doctrine that is aberrational and one that is heretical?

Aberrant Doctrine Definition

Aberrant doctrine is a particular teaching does not overtly deny basic biblical theology but is nevertheless dangerously inconsistent with an orthodox confession of faith. A good example of this would be the “prosperity” teachers who are growing like wildfire within Christian denominations — doctrines of this variety are referred to as aberrations. Thus, a group may be orthodox in its central theology while at the same time maintain teachings and practices that are clearly at odds with essential Christian theology.

RELIGIOUS HERESY- Definition
The word “heresy,” in its most common usage, refers to false teachings that destroy. They are destructive because they overturn the basic elements which make up the historic Christian faith, substituting in their place doctrines which distort or contradict the teachings found in the Bible.

RELIGIOUS HERESY- The Essentials
The doctrines of the Trinity, the unique deity of Jesus Christ, and the resurrection are among the essentials of Christianity. They represent the core of Christian belief as contained within the pages of Scripture, and they compose what is commonly called “orthodox theology.” And thus, heresies are teachings which openly deny any one of these fundamental doctrines. Examples of heresies include the Mormon doctrine that there are many gods, and that you may become one, as well as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who clearly deny the Trinity.

Source: https://www.equip.org/perspectives/heresies-and-aberrations-what-is-the-difference/

This post to present information so you can draw your own conclusions.

Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, 1 Thessalonians 5:20 & 21

What John MacArthur Believes About Everything

https://youtu.be/7zkV5-fQMQ8?si=Ay9qBoOgPsxI_8rr

Ready to Harvest

John MacArthur is one of the most well-known pastors in America. The 85 year-old preacher has been the pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California since 1969 and is the Chancellor of The Master’s University and The Master’s Seminary. He is the sole editor of the MacArthur Study Bible, which has sold over a million copies, and has also written or edited over 150 books. His radio program Grace to You is played on stations worldwide.

But what does he believe?

---------------------------------------------------
Middletown Bible Church about John MacArthur's Teachings

John MacArthur and Dispensationalism

And Our Response

MacArthur Answers A Question About Dispensationalism

The following question was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and answered by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-16, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE.

https://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/jmacdis.htm

John MacArthur's

Position on the Lordship of Christ

https://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/lordshjm.htm

The following is intended to document some of Dr. MacArthur's teachings which relate to Lordship salvation in order to see some of the inconsistencies of his position. We hold no animosity toward Dr. MacArthur. Our desire is only to "prove all things", by testing all things by the Word of God, to see if they are true (1 Thess. 5:21; Acts 17:11). Dr. MacArthur's teachings have a worldwide impact, and his doctrines should not be embraced without subjecting them to the searchlight of the Scriptures.

John MacArthur's One Nature Position

Introduction

https://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/1natjmin.htm

The purpose of these series of studies is to carefully document and explain John MacArthur’s teaching that the believer in Christ possesses only one nature, the new nature in Christ. This documentation was obtained from his published writings and from his public tapes.

The Scripture tells us to “prove all things (test all things by the Word of God), hold fast that which is good.” We want to do this in the case of John MacArthur’s teachings. Our desire has been to do this fairly and graciously, but at the same time to point out where, how and why certain positions which John MacArthur has taken are out of harmony with the Word of God and out of harmony with the doctrinal position of the IFCA. We hold no animosity towards John MacArthur, but because of the far reaching influence which he has in and among our churches, it is necessary to examine his teachings and warn believers concerning those doctrines that are not in harmony with what the Bible says.

This material was originally prepared for and presented to the National Executive Committee of the IFCA along with materials of a similar nature submitted by other concerned IFCA brethren. Another key issue of concern was John MacArthur's position on the Eternal Sonship of Christ. https://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sonship/sonjm00.htm

John MacArthur's Position on the Extent of the Atonement

As Compared to the IFCA Doctrinal Statement

https://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/macatone.htm

John MacArthur was Finally Removed from the IFCA (February 2017)

In January of 2017 John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue published the book Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth. In this book is a section on "The Extent of the Atonement" where John MacArthur's position on limited atonement is made crystal clear. The IFCA International Executive Director, Les Lofquist, based on this book, recognized that MacArthur's position was in clear conflict with the IFCA doctrinal statement. As a result, John MacArthur was kindly asked to withdraw from membership in the IFCA. MacArthur responded to this request by graciously withdrawing himself from being a member of the IFCA (Feb. 23, 2017).

Les Lofquist and the IFCA leadership did the right thing. They upheld the doctrinal integrity of the IFCA by not allowing a person to hold membership who holds to a deviant view. I do not understand why it took the IFCA over twenty years to take this action because John MacArthur's limited atonement position has not changed in these past two decades, as this study has demonstrated. It is not as if all of a sudden he started teaching that Christ died only for the elect and not for all mankind. He has been teaching this for over twenty years. I am thankful, however, that the right thing was finally done.

 

Neo Calvinism vs. The Bible; The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJ5WZ9aWBhyiIbTivo-1se-Gckn1uh4Ot&si=v9Y6Yxs5CN6J7M4n

We're embarking on a new series this is not a book study. This is a topic uh study and the title of this is what I would call Neo-Calvinism versus the Bible.

A lot of people wanting to go back to the teachings of John Calvin today who was an interesting person. He brought some good and he brought some bad um he lived from 1509 to 1564 and you know we're going to be going into all of this but as the as the study unfolds but there is a movement today that I call Neo-Calvinism and they're very aggressive and it's my conclusion that a lot of the things they say are not directly supported by the Bible and so that's sort of what this series is about and don't worry I'm going to have a lot of opportunity to back up that statement.

I'm just giving you a taste of what's coming so here is a six-part outline that we're going to use as we go through this teaching together this will go several weeks.

Numeral 1 that we'll talk about today called Calvinism's mixed blessing there's some good things that come out of Calvinism I'll try to show you show.

Numeral 2 is why would we get into this why critique Neo- Calvinism and so we're going to spend some time talking about that.

Numeral 3 we're going to get into the subject of the source of Calvin's theology so a lot of people kind of look at John Calvin as somebody that was just a guy that exceed the scripture and he did that in certain instances. but people that think that really don't understand where Calvin drew his ideas from. He drew them from a source called Augustine who lived over a century ago, a thousand years earlier than Calvin. and so Augustine his beliefs are kind of a mixed bag. So you'll see once you study Augustine you'll see he was very mixed, a lot of the things he said were a little bit were off and that's why Calvin carried over a lot of things from4 Augustine into reformed churches today. So you'll you'll still see a lot of that fuzzy teaching in reformed churches today.

Numeral 4 we're going to get into Calvin's manner of life, I mean what kind of person was this that everybody's following John Calvin. Did he lived some kind of completely sanctified life? Hardly as I'll show you

Numeral 5 is where we're going to spend the bulk of the series going through the Calvinistic theology known through the anacronym T.U.L.I.P. It's a logically arranged theology and as you'll see some of it is biblical some of it is not. As I'll show you T.U.L.I.P stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and the Perseverance of the Saints. Then so we're going to spend a lot of time going through each of those letters you know "here's what the Neo- Calvinists are saying and here's what the Bible says.

Numeral 6 assuming the Rapture doesn't happen first and we'll get to a conclusion that Neo-Calvinism is a philosophy >>read into the Bible<< it's not a theology >>derived from the Bible<<. It's a man made philosophy read back into the Bible

So that's sort of the direction that we're moving in I hope you're interested in this. At some point in someone's life they get hit with Calvinism by somebody. You hear so much about Calvin and Calvinism we have all of these young people that are converting to Calvinism they're called the Young reformed and restless.

You know it's almost like a test of fellowship with certain Christians to see if you stand on Calvinism, first thing they want to know about and so since there's all this noise made about it we want to you know do some examination of it so that's sort of the direction that we're moving in.

01. Second Thessalonians 3:14–15

Andy Woods

02. Second Peter 1:19

03. Revelation 20:1-10

04. Zechariah 2:8

05. Romans 11:17-18

06. Matthew 28:19

07. Ephesians 1:10

08. Matthew 7:16-18

09. Matthew 7:16-18

10. Matthew 7:16-18

11 - Galatians 5:22

12. Jeremiah 17:9

13 - Genesis 8:21

15. Genesis 3:22

16. Ephesians 2:1-5

17 - Acts 17:27

18. John 5:40

19. Isaiah 55:8-9

20. Acts 17:30

21. Acts 13:48

22. Deuteronomy 7:7-8

23- Exodus 4:21

24. John 1:29

25. 1 John 2:2

26. Romans 4:4-5

27. Rom. 4:4-5

Calvinism and Romans 9, 10, 11

 

Calvinism and Romans 9, 10, 11
Time start: 13:18
https://www.youtube.com/live/dilS6onGGtg?si=EpcBg--Mjy9FU8KD&t=798

The MacArthur Study Bible

 

The MacArthur Study Bible

#24 Neo-Calvinism vs. The Bible

Limited Atonement

John 1:29

https://youtu.be/bFmsUNyNEBQ?si=IUopAbACzsvK8LgT

John the Baptist went through here he's doing his thing he's baptizing people they're identifying with his message and Jesus shows up to be baptized by John and John

knows who Jesus is and he says "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the the world." Not the elect the world so so if you're a five pointer how do you handle this?

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

The Son's mission is bound up in the supreme love of God for the evil, sinful "world" of humanity... Ref-0089 John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1997)

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29)

. . . In this context "world" has the connotation of humanity in general, but not specifically every person. Ref-0089 John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1997)

Look at what John MacArthur writes on John 1 29 where it says the sin of the world and this is what you'll read in this context the world has the connotation of humanity in general but not specifically every person see that so the world is redefined as it's just kind of an umbrella statement of the human race but he's not talking about every person here. When John the Baptist says seeing Jesus coming behold the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world you're not to understand that as every person it's just kind of an umbrella category for the human race. 

You know a lot of people get mad at me because I point these things out with John MacArthur and the MacArthur Study Bible. People like the MacArthur Study Bible it's got a lot of good maps in it and colorful pictures and outlines of the Bible. "What's the matter with you pastor why won't you recommend the MacArthur Study Bible to people?  Well it's because of stuff like this. I mean what do you need to poison something if I'm going to poison a glass of water I don't have to pollute the whole

cup of water I just need to put a little drop or two in. So people just kind of because they like other things John MacArthur says he's good on creation and or whatever, he's taking a stand against the purpose-driven church they just buy into everything the man says and they're getting spoon-fed constantly this five-point Calvinism including the most controversial point in Calvinism you know this limited atonement idea. That's the reason I don't promote the teachings of John MacArthur for that very reason. This is just one of many areas I could talk about his view of lordship salvation is off salvation is not receiving a free gift it has to do with your willingness to lay down your life for Jesus so he's confusing justification with spiritual growth he does this constantly in his commentaries and notes he takes things out of context. 

I'll show you this with the perseverance of the saints: Matthew 24:13 "he who endures to the end will be saved" when you're reading John MacArthur's commentary on the Olivet discourse and he's doing a really good job with it and then he hits verse 13 and it's like the guy just loses his mind he leaves the context, he dumps into verse 13 all of this Calvinistic perseverance of the saints stuff that you've got to make it to the end of your life in good works and faith or you're not one of the elect and then when he's finished with verse 13 it's like he gets his sanity back and he goes back to a normal verse by verse reading of verse 13 when verse 13 is talking about the nation of Israel at the end of the tribulation period it's got nothing to do with I've got to make it to the end of my life and good works to prove I'm one of the elect it's got to do with if the nation of Israel.

__________________________________________________________

Interpretive Bias of the MacArthur Study Bible

https://www.spiritandtruth.org/questions/406.htm?x=x#Ref-0089

Q: You recommend highly the  MacArthur Study Bible, but I know he was instrumental in the Lordship Salvation movement which you oppose (as do I).  Does it concern you that the study notes might be slanted toward a reformed view and make dispensational study and soteriology unclear?  I have a MacArthur Study Bible but seldom use it because I am suspect of lens through which he interprets scripture. Thank you.

A406 : by Tony Garland

Your concern is valid: like any study Bible or commentary, the MacArthur Study Bible (MSB) will show bias toward the theological interpretations of its editors. As you mentioned, the MSB is slanted toward a reformed view of soteriology (salvation) including an emphasis on the lordship of Christ as determinative of one's true salvation experience along with support for limited atonement.

We can discern the MSB support for limited atonement in the notes pertaining to the word world as it occurs in both John 1:29 and John 3:16. See if you can spot the tell-tale sign of a limited atonement bias in the notes which follow (I’ve added emphasis to help).

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

The Son's mission is bound up in the supreme love of God for the evil, sinful "world" of humanity...1

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29)

. . . In this context "world" has the connotation of humanity in general, but not specifically every person.2

In both passages, the notes place the word world in quotes — your first tip-off that the interpreter is not going to take the word at face value, but substitute an alternative meaning—here a subset of the world: only the elect, those who exercise faith.

Another example, this time of a slant toward lordship salvation, is found in the MSB study notes concerning Jesus' teaching of the True Vine (John 15:1-8).

Despite Jesus' clear statement, 2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit . . . (John 15:2), the MSB is convinced that branches that do not bear fruit cannot be believers and their burning must refer to eternal destiny in hell.

6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:6)

The imagery here is one of destruction (cf. Matt. 3:10–12; 5:22; 13:40–42, 50; 25:41; Mark 9:43–49; Luke 3:17; 2 Thess. 1:7–9; Rev. 20:10–15). It pictures the judgment awaiting all those who were never saved.3

Contrast the view of the MSB with that of the Ryrie Study Bible:

they are burned. This refers to the works of the believer. The Christian who does not abide in Christ cannot do what pleases God: therefore, his works will be burned at the judgment seat of Christ, though he himself will be saved (1Cor. 3:11-15).4

Yet another example of both the lordship salvation and limited atonement tendency of the MSB can be found in the interpretation of the treasure in the field and the pearl of great price.

44 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. 45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, 46 who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it. (Mat. 13:44-46)

Predictably, in the MSB, the believer is the one who must perform.

These two parables (Mat.13:44-46) have identical meanings. Both picture salvation as something hidden from most people . . . but so valuable that people who have it revealed to them are willing to give up all they have to possess it.5

Lordship salvation constantly emphasizes what a person must do in order to qualify as a true believer or disciple.6 And limited atonement can't afford to have God be the One purchasing the field—because the field clearly represents the world—without quotes! [The field is the world . . . (Mat. 13:37)].

Here the lordship and limited atonment biases ignore the clear contextual indicators to conclude that the man is a believer who is so serious about pursuing salvation he is willing to pay a huge price! Never mind that everywhere else in the Bible, it is God who does the purchasing of the believer because the believer has nothing to offer toward the price of salvation (Ps. 49:7; Isa. 55:1).

Even Ryrie promotes the view, although he at least mentions the possibility of an alternate interpretation.7

Another possible interpretation equates the man with Christ (as in v. 37) who sacrifices His all to purchase His people.8

For a more fruitful explanation than the MSB or Ryrie provide, consider the following presentation: The Private Parablesa by Steve Lewis

In summary, we must all take care to be in God's Word directly and to discern the biases present in any study aid or teaching we come in contact with. In the case of study Bibles, it has been my experience that new believers are generally not much affected by theological subtleties present in the study notes—until they grow deeper in their understanding of Scripture. By then, our expectation is that they will have grown in discernment so as to be able to detect biases and departures from their own reading of Scripture. Of course, this is an inexact science, but in my view, it isn't a reason to throw any reputable Study Bible out, including The MacArthur Study Bible—which in other ways has much to commend it.

Endnotes:

1. Ref-0089, John 3:16, emphasis mine

2. Ref-0089, John 1:29, emphasis mine

3. Ref-0089, John 15:6

4. Ref-1187, John 15:6

5. Ref-0089, Mat. 13:44-46

6. It seems to me that lordship salvation gives and then takes away where it concerns the security of the believer. Yes, those who are truly saved are secure. But do you really know you are one of them? How is your performance? Are you measuring up, truly obedient? Perhaps you aren’t really a believer . . . in which case eternal security isn’t yours after all!

7. Notice that even our beloved Ryrie misses the boat here—which illustrates that even a favorite study Bible will include suspect interpretations.

8. Ref-1187, Mat. 13:44-46

Sources:

Ref-0089 John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1997).

Ref-1187 Charles Ryrie, Ryrie Study Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody Bible Institute, 1986, 1995). ISBN:9780802438669b. 

Links Mentioned Above

a - See https://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Matthew_13_by_Steve_Lewis/006_Matthew_13_44-52/index.htm.

b - See https://spiritandtruth.org/id/isbn.htm?9780802438669.

Strange Bedfellows: Olive Tree Ministries, Prophecy Watchers and Jonathan Cahn, Hope for the World

 How did Jan Markel and Olive Tree Ministries get associated with the False Prophet Jonathan Cahn, and the Nephilim Eschatology of Mondo Gonzales, Co-Host of Prophecy Watchers, L. A. Marzulli, Frequent Guest at Prophecy Watchers and Larry Ollison, Senior Pastor of WOW Faith Church?

These are strange bedfellows. The connection is with Prophecy Waters and Gary Stearman who is sponsoring The Orlando Prophecy Summit. 

This event was brought to my attention by a post on Facebook by Famine in the Land.

Different Soteriological Systems within Protestant Evangelical Christianity

 

Lesser Known Views in Christian Eschatology - Ready to Harvest

 

Click on Chart to Enlarge

Lesser Known Views in Christian Eschatology 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRSHDfQxhco

Christian Eschatology is the set of beliefs Christians have on the end times. You probably know about many of these, like premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. These can further be broken down into preterist, idealist, historicist and futurist points. I covered the most popular perspectives in my video on Christian Eschatology Explained. Now, let’s look at the more unusual viewpoints, as well as some not-so-unusual viewpoints, but ones that are just talked about less. I won’t be re-defining terms in this video, so if you want a primer on what terms mean, watch that video first.

In the last video, we discussed futurism as it relates to premillennialism, but what about the other two positions? Postmillennialist futurism seems to not really exist. Not that it couldn’t exist, but just that no person has found the view persuasive, or Biblical perhaps. A postmillennial futurist would say that most of the Biblical eschatological passages relate to events in the future, and that the second coming is after the millennium. So the world gets better and better as the millennium progresses and, and then suddenly devolves into the chaotic end-times apocalyptic events. That’s pretty strange, so I leave it as a blank. However, Amillennial futurism does exist. This view sees much of the book of Revelation as referring to actual future events, such as a future antichrist and Tribulation period, but views the millennium as symbolic and taking place now. An example of this view is Joseph Meiring’s chapter in the book “the four keys to the millennium.”

Now, let’s add another column for preterism. The viewpoint of “partial preterism” which is held to by many within various Christian denominations is actually radically different from what is called “full preterism”, which is taught mostly by scattered independent churches and individuals. Remember, preterist means “past” and so a preterist view proposes that most of the eschatological statements in the Bible refer to past events, particularly focused most often on the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD. However, partial preterists are “partial” in that they don’t view all things as being fulfilled then. For example, the second coming is still future, the final judgment, and the revealing of new heavens and new earth. But the Full Preterist view says that those things were completed in 70 AD also. The second coming took place in 70 AD, and the final judgment happened, and this is now the new heavens and new earth, and it will continue indefinitely. Now I have placed this viewpoint partially between postmillennial and amillennial. Full Preterists tend not to refer to themselves by either term. Remember that the amillennial view is also a postmillennial view. So both views say that the second coming is after the millennium. The view of Full Preterism is that the Millennium was a 40-year period between the resurrection of Christ and 70 AD, at which point the Second Coming was fulfilled. This view is postmillennial in that the second coming is after a definite period of time that is identified as the Millennium, and looks amillennial in that there was not a literal earthly “golden age” that was brought in. Examples of those holding this belief are Max King, Tim King, Don Preston and Ed Stevens, who wrote the book “What Happened in 70 AD?”

A view similar to full preterism is Premillennial Preterism. Many Full Preterists look highly on J Stuart Russell who first proposed this view in his book “The Parousia” in 1878. As I said, full preterism sees the Millennium as a 40-year period before 70AD, and the second coming in that year. Liekwise, Premillennial Preterism says that the second coming took place in 70 AD, however, the Millennium did not end in that year, but rather began then, and continues today. So since premillennialism says that the millennium is after the second coming, this view is premillennial, and also preterist. This views is much closer to full preterism than partial preterism, but “Full preterism” is very much an all-or-nothing” thing. Since the Millennium is not in the past, this is not a full preterist view. A modern proponent of this view is Duncan McKenzie and his two-volume series on the Antichrist and the Second Coming.

Now let’s look at a new way to view this spectrum of end-times views. To the left is views that lean more and more toward “realized” eschatology. Realized, meaning that things already happened. On the right is “unrealized” eschatology, meaning that things have not yet happened. The views between then land somewhere between, an area called “inaugurated eschatology” that is often described by the phrase “already but not yet.” Inaugurated, because the eschatological kingdom of Christ is viewed as in some senses here already since Christ came to earth, but not yet because there are other aspects which are not fully present yet. This scale, by the way is not an unusual eschatology position, but rather an additional scale which contains all eschatology positions. What’s interesting though is that some today prefer to describe their eschatology position by focusing on this “scale of realization” rather than on their millennial views.

Full preterism falls to the far “realized” side of this scale, as it is a view that sees everything prophetic already fulfilled. In that sense it can be and is often called “realized eschatology.” But there is a view that is different from the standard full preterist views and yet is also a fully realized view. It’s called “Realized Eschatology.” Rather than viewing eschatological fulfillments as happening in AD 70, this view, which is often found among theological liberals, views all the prophecies being fulfilled during the ministry of Christ. C.H. Dodd brought this view to the forefront. Another proponent of the view is J.A.T Robinson and his book “Jesus and His Coming.” Robinson denied a literal resurrection of Christ. Though Dodd and Robinson taught that all prophetic fulfilment is done, Robinson took special care to emphasize the ongoing nature of things in the ongoing legacy of Christ did and the influence of his ministry and teaching in the lives of his followers today.

There is also a view that is on the opposite side of the spectrum but at the same time has many of the same ideas. This is a view that has been called “consistent eschatology” popularized by Albert Schweitzer. It is called such because those who hold to it view Christ in “consistently apocalyptic” or “consistently eschatological” ways. Like Realized Eschatology, Consistent Eschatology says that Jesus’s eschatological claims were meant by him to be understood as very imminent. Christ said that the Kingdom of God was at hand, that this generation would see His return, and so forth. This view though simply says that Jesus thought the end would be in his lifetime, and when that didn’t seem to be happening, Jesus decided his death must bring in the end, but even in this Jesus was wrong. Jesus expected an immediate end of times, but he was mistaken. This view is futurist because it still sees these eschatological claims as “not yet”, and although it is a liberal view in allowing a fallible Jesus, it still teaches Jesus as someone to follow.

Between the extremes of “it all happened” of realized eschatology” and “it all didn’t happen” of consistent eschatology” is the broader set of views found in inaugurated eschatology, which says “it’s started, but it’s not all here yet.”

Though all of idealism, for example can be viewed in some ways as being an inaugurated eschatology, there is also a specific camp of those who hold beliefs in common that call their position “inaugurated eschatology.” The person who popularized the view was George Ladd, a futurist premillennialist – but distinctively NOT a dispensationalist, and inaugurated eschatology is widely viewed as a mutually exclusive position to dispensational eschatology in particular. Inaugurated Eschatology proper views the church today as true Israel, whereas dispensationalists deny that equivalence. Others already on the chart that have claimed the “inaugurated eschatology” include Anthony Hoekema, an idealist amillennialist, and GK Beale, who lands in one place I have yet to explain – the eclectic view.

Many of the eschatology views have parts that overlap. In fact, George Ladd, who I’ve listed as a futurist actually said “Therefore, we conclude that the correct method of interpreting the revelation is a blending of the preterist and the futurist methods.”

However, some views are so mixed as to create a new category, the eclectic view, which pulls from idealism primarily, but with pieces of futurism, preterism, and sometimes historicism also. Beale wrote the book “Revelation a Shorter Commentary” and describes his view as “Eclectic Redmptive-historical idealist”, and Brian Tabb, author of all things new follow him in this. Another Eclectic view is that of Sam Stroms and his book “Kingdom Come.” All three of these authors are amillennial, and as it currently stands, the eclectic view is primarily amillennial, but not exclusively so.

Of course, there’s also the eschatology view that tends to be brought up whenever eschatology is discussed, jokingly called “panmillennialism” – where one says “I believe it will all pan out in the end.”